Jump to content

Do You Get Bullied?


Karoka

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Quote:
You are astute as ever, and you are correct in that Christianity was not the crux of the comparison, so to speak. Also I was not making reference to the persecution of the Jews either. And the conflict predates Jesus by several centuries. Basically there has been fighting between the nation of Israel and Arab ancestors of the Palestinians ever since the day of Joshua. I hope we don't have to wait that long.


Are you confusing Philistines with Palestinians? And even then...
Maybe he meant the Philistines and the Canaanites and the Ethiopians and the Egyptians and the Babylonians and the Persians and the Greeks and the Romans and the Moabites and the Ammonites and the uh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
I get more of a feeling that the Canaanites were really the ones being persecuted. They were living there, and then suddenly, "Hey, this is our promised land! We're going to kill you for it!"

Excalibur, you astonish me! I thought I was the only one who saw that from both perspectives. Not really, but I don't hear it too often from other people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
I get more of a feeling that the Canaanites were really the ones being persecuted. They were living there, and then suddenly, "Hey, this is our promised land! We're going to kill you for it!"
IIRC, the Canaanites were given x generations to repent for their sins during Abraham's time. Obviously, they didn't and then they lost that land to the Israelites. So basically, they died because they were sinners. And God is racist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Originally Posted By: Excalibur
I get more of a feeling that the Canaanites were really the ones being persecuted. They were living there, and then suddenly, "Hey, this is our promised land! We're going to kill you for it!"

Excalibur, you astonish me! I thought I was the only one who saw that from both perspectives. Not really, but I don't hear it too often from other people.

That argument could be used by most groups moving in where another group is living. Any of the major conquering empires: Mongols, Greeks, Romans, French, English, ....

Or Native American Indians dealing with the White United States settlers growing west with Manifest Destiny. After all the US just bought or acquired the land from Europeans that claimed the lands from the current occupants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

That argument could be used by most groups moving in where another group is living. Any of the major conquering empires: Mongols, Greeks, Romans, French, English, ....

Or Native American Indians dealing with the White United States settlers growing west with Manifest Destiny. After all the US just bought or acquired the land from Europeans that claimed the lands from the current occupants.


And so life goes on as usual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
The Bible is one historical source, but it is hardly a document that can be assumed to record history with perfect accuracy. The Israelites were Canaanites themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanites


On a semi-related not, it always amuses me when people (usually Israel supporters) accuse Arabs of being anti-Semitic. It's a great litmus test to figure out if people are really familiar with both sides of the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antisemitism and homophobia both have etymologies you can trace that give you the wrong definition. Semitic peoples and religions include much more than just the Jews, but antisemitism is explicitly hatred of Jews and no one else just like homophobia is not actually fear of sameness.

 

—Alorael, who uses antisemitism because it is the accepted term for hatred of Jews. You're welcome to coin neologisms if you'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Originally Posted By: Dantius
On a semi-related note

semi-semite-related?

Spoken like a true punmeister. The badder the better. I love it!

PS. I have heard that puns can be considered verbal flatulence. You can clear a room with a pun as quickly as you can with the other type of flatulence.

Oh, BTW, thanks for pointing out that, according to the bible, Abraham, the ancestor of the Israelites was a Caananite before their migration to Egypt. I just wonder what hornet storm this comment will post. I am never disappointed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to archaeological research, not scripture. As I said, the Bible is one of many historical sources, with some fairly obvious bias. So while it is usually interesting and sometimes relevant to see what the Bible says, it is almost never the first place to turn, when you are looking for ancient history as opposed to religious tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E
Harehunter,
What's wrong with me calling myself a Scottish-American and wearing a kilt? (JK, don't get your PIAW).

Skwish-E feels that this thread is about played out, and will probably go back to simply making trivial, humorous posts now.

This article goes back to a subject I had hoped we had put to bed. IndyStar.com article

Comments please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
This article goes back to a subject I had hoped we had put to bed. IndyStar.com article

Comments please.


i can hardly blame carson for saying something that is absolutely, literally true. go to a site like freerepublic -- a site frequented by at least one Republican member of Congress -- and it won't take you too long to find comments calling for the lynching of the president. there is a large, vocal and politically powerful contingent of the American right that is openly racist, especially when it thinks it isn't being watched by unsympathetic eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Originally Posted By: Skwish-E
Harehunter,
What's wrong with me calling myself a Scottish-American and wearing a kilt? (JK, don't get your PIAW).

Skwish-E feels that this thread is about played out, and will probably go back to simply making trivial, humorous posts now.

This article goes back to a subject I had hoped we had put to bed. IndyStar.com article

Comments please.


Excuse me, but WTF does my comment have to do with lynching???!!!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E
Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Originally Posted By: Skwish-E
Harehunter,
What's wrong with me calling myself a Scottish-American and wearing a kilt? (JK, don't get your PIAW).

Skwish-E feels that this thread is about played out, and will probably go back to simply making trivial, humorous posts now.

This article goes back to a subject I had hoped we had put to bed. IndyStar.com article

Comments please.


Excuse me, but WTF does my comment have to do with lynching???!!!?

It appears that you enjoy the word hang???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
I don't like the TEA Party so much, seeing as to how they're socially conservative and would probably continue Bush/Obama-like foreign policy. Nonetheless, the media really seems to go out of its way to demonize it.

Sorry, Skwish-E, I was referring to your remark that the thread had played out. I resurrect this topic only because I have been asked to cite examples of what I perceive to be the unwarranted use of race-baiting.

I intentionally made no accusations here. I merely ask if the accusation is fair? I know that there was slavery in this country at one time. Does this accusation have any basis in truth? Are all conservatives members of the KKK? No more than anyone can say all muslims are members of Al-Qaeda.

My real questions are these; Why would the congressman make this accusation? What purpose does it serve? And why would the media go out of its way to demonize a group of people?

BTW, I work in an environment that is mostly socially conservative, and not one of my co-workers saw any good reason for Bush to invade Iraq; we never should have gone there. With that having been said, what would you say of our responsibility to the people of Iraq having torn their country apart and deposing their government? Just blow the heck out of the place and leave? Bush 41 was correct in his decision to not go there; just free Kuwait, and stop. And we all agree that our engagement in Afghanistan has gone on far too long at too great an expense in capital and in blood, with no expectation of making a viable democracy in that country of feudal tribalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Are all conservatives members of the KKK? No more than anyone can say all muslims are members of Al-Qaeda.


Carson said that SOME members of congress who are in the Tea Party would be happy to see lynchings. SOME is not the same thing as ALL. You are making a straw man argument.

But I will add: there is a Nigerian proverb, "when one finger brought oil, it soiled the others." I certainly agree that many, perhaps even most members of the Tea Party are not racist. However, when you choose to align yourself with a group, especially a political party, some of whose members are known for making racist statements, obviously people will wonder if you agree; you will be soiled by association. If you worked for Sarkozy nobody will think you care about the poor, even if you really do.

This is a simple fact of politics. If we were judging people's hearts, I'd say this is all inadmissable; but if we're judging the reputation of a group of people, the actions of large minorities of its members are quite relevant.

I will also add that this effect is much stronger for political parties, because you actively choose a political party based on opinions and platforms, so it is reasonable to associate someone with the opinions and platforms of their chosen party. This does not apply so much to religion, for example, since most people follow the faith they are brought up in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
I don't like the TEA Party so much, seeing as to how they're socially conservative and would probably continue Bush/Obama-like foreign policy. Nonetheless, the media really seems to go out of its way to demonize it.


arguably, the media simply gives it a voice with which it does a perfectly good job of demonising itself, at least in the eyes of those who don't agree with it. if media organisations seriously wanted to marginalise the tea party, they'd simply stop reporting on tea party activities entirely, like they do with left-wing organisations

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
I will also add that this effect is much stronger for political parties, because you actively choose a political party based on opinions and platforms, so it is reasonable to associate someone with the opinions and platforms of their chosen party. This does not apply so much to religion, for example, since most people follow the faith they are brought up in.


it's worth keeping in mind that many people follow the politics they are brought up in as well. i'm personally acquainted with a number of rusted-on political party supporters who could state no other reason for their choice of party than family loyalty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media does enjoy demonizing people, and groups of people. And it is also true that they don't do it to everyone. While individual media outlets may do this deliberately (Fox News, I'm looking at you), for the most part I think this just reflects with the "conventional wisdom" already is: how "most people" would react, sort of at the nexus of common sense, common prejudices, and political correctness.

 

Obama is highly resistant to this kind of demonization due to his status as a member of a group that has been systematically discriminated against, who also seems to have a lot of integrity in his personal life. Bush was highly resistant to this demonization during the period following 9/11, when popular support for the commander-in-chief overrode other feelings about Bush that normally (i.e., today) feed into the CW. People who say things that do not fit with common sense are particularly vulnerable (Dan Quayle on Murphy Brown, Al Gore on the internet, Sarah Palin on foreign policy, Bill Clinton on things he did not do).

 

I think Thuryl is right, though, that the Tea Party gets far more coverage than other less-centrist appendages of U.S. politics. I'd argue though that that's the result of specific news outlets (hello again, Fox News) working overtime to create Tea Party news stories.

 

EDIT: And Good point Thuryl. However, in the case of career politicians, even if their choices are influenced by their family history, their whole public image revolves around those choices, so I think it's still fair to connect those things, moreso than with religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe "demonize" is too strong of a word. Some people at TEA Part rallies carry outrageous signs that are either racist, make Hitler comparisons, etc. News networks are businesses, and racisms and fascism are easy to sell.

 

Racism is arguably only likely to occur among similar conservative movements, but Hitler comparisons are fairly common among any sufficiently angry group of protesters. I remember the media showing anti-war protestors with signs comparing Bush to Hitler, though the anti-war movement suddenly diminished when Obama became president.

 

Admittedly, I never get news from Fox, and most of my impressions of the network come from Jon Stewart. So I really don't know most of what they cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Racism is arguably only likely to occur among similar conservative movements, but Hitler comparisons are fairly common among any sufficiently angry group of protesters. I remember the media showing anti-war protestors with signs comparing Bush to Hitler, though the anti-war movement suddenly diminished when Obama became president.


this is exactly what i'm talking about when i talk about the media marginalising positions by ignoring them. after obama's election, attendance at anti-war protests didn't substantially decrease, either by police estimates or by those of the protest organisers, but coverage of the protests decreased because they could no longer fit into the media narrative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
No, but the biggest attendance at antiwar protests by FAR was when the Iraq War began, back in 2003. Antiwar protests got very little media coverage in the later years of Bush's terms, too.


well, true enough. even so, trying to paint the change of administration as causing a reduction in protests is misleading at best
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Then why did attendance at anti-war protests decrease when Obama was elected, and especially among Democrats?

( Summary of study )


you're still confusing cause and effect. lack of publicity led to declines in attendance, not the other way around. the study you link to makes precisely this point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Carson said that SOME members of congress who are in the Tea Party would be happy to see lynchings. SOME is not the same thing as ALL. You are making a straw man argument.

But I will add: there is a Nigerian proverb, "when one finger brought oil, it soiled the others." I certainly agree that many, perhaps even most members of the Tea Party are not racist. However, when you choose to align yourself with a group, especially a political party, some of whose members are known for making racist statements, obviously people will wonder if you agree; you will be soiled by association. If you worked for Sarkozy nobody will think you care about the poor, even if you really do.

You are exactly right. SOME does NOT mean ALL. But in the political forum, accusations such as this are intended to paint with a broad brush the idea that if SOME want you killed, then that equates to MOST want you killed, which escalates to ALL want you killed. When Carson uses this expression of 'hanging from a tree', he is painting a very painful picture, one that goes directly to the emotions, bypassing the more logical response you gave, and reigniting the rage against the KKK, and by extension, all white people.

To what purpose does he make these baseless accusations? There has to be a reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Then why did attendance at anti-war protests decrease when Obama was elected, and especially among Democrats?
( Summary of study )

you're still confusing cause and effect. lack of publicity led to declines in attendance, not the other way around. the study you link to makes precisely this point

Interesting. I wondered if anyone else had noticed this. But the theory that
Quote:
coverage of the protests decreased because they could no longer fit into the media narrative
doesn't quite wash. The coverage on anti war protests dropped sharply upon Obama's inauguration, but even more interestingly, NPR went from daily reports of wounded killed personnel, to nothing said about it one day.

Tea Party movement did not begin to gain momentum until much later in the year. Not until after it was discovered of how wastefully the trillion dollar stimulus fund had been spent. Xref discussion on economics for those few who haven't followed that thread.

The medical insurance reform bill was written behind closed doors, totally excluding the Republican Representatives. During his campaign, Obama had promised that that would not happen, and that all legislation would be posted on the internet for a week before he would sign it. The truth was not in him. When congress passed that bill, only a small handful of people knew what was in it. In fact, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared that Congress would have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Hotel, Over!
Meanwhile, the economy keeps getting worse, and unemployment is on the rise. One of the biggest reasons for businesses freezing on spending is the uncertainty of what impact of the federal healthcare law is going to have on them. The requirements made by this bill are going to cost a lot of money, and the since many of the provisions of this bill won't occur until 2012, there is no way to determine that cost. And businesses have a big problem with increased expenses; they aren't allowed to print more money, and they don't have an infinite credit limit. Insurance companies have already reacted to the bill by dropping policies that would bankrupt them within months of certain provisions taking effect. And as to Obama's promise to publish the bill five days before signing it? Yea, right.
And all this brouhaha over a bill that has been judged in federal court to be unconstitutional in the first place.

As to the racial slurs made at Tea Party rallies, it has been posited that they were made by Democrat activists who are trying to put a false face on the movement. Anecdotal only, but in the polarized atmosphere of U.S. politics, where epithets fly freely, with the intent of polarizing our society further ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...